Remove 2021 Remove Marketing Remove Personality Rights Remove Social Media
article thumbnail

Anil Kapoor Vs Simply Life India & Ors: An Unwavering Assurance In Safeguarding Personality Rights Against Ai

IP and Legal Filings

ABSTRACT There has been a dramatic increase in the commercial use of celebrity personalities by people not authorized to do so compared to the earlier times. Protecting personality rights has become a growing problem in India due to deepfakes, morphed pictures, etc. Interesting right? Puttaswamy v.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

Continuing our annual tradition of recounting the significant developments that impacted the Indian IP landscape in the year that has been, we bring you a round-up of 2021’s developments. Here’s wishing all our readers a very happy, safe, and healthy new year! b) Top 10 IP Judgments/Orders (Jurisprudence/Legal Lucidity) and.

IP 143
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Recipes Aren’t Copyrightable, No Matter How “Exciting” They Are–Coscarelli v. Esquared

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Frederick Andrew Braunstein, Akerman LLP (left the case in 2021). Reena Jain, Akerman LLP (left the case in 2021). Her inability to control social media accounts referencing her reminded me of the Hayley Paige Gutman litigation , and I will say more about this issue when I blog the JW Dant bourbon case. Esquared Hosp. ,

Copyright 141
article thumbnail

What Do You “Meme” That’s Copyrightable?

IPilogue

Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, enrolled in Professor David Vaver’s 2021-2022 Intellectual Property Law & Technology Intensive Program. This may become tricky in the context of social media, as memes only become popular by copying and reposting. Shayna Jan is a 3L J.D. Is Infringement Even Possible Then?

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 13- November 19)

SpicyIP

Though the parties were able to reach an agreement and the defendant removed the hoarding and other posts on social media sites, considering the question of whether such a use would fall under Section 52 or not, the court posted the matter for further hearing on February 2.